Libertarian Populism is Still Relevant in the Age of Trump

As the midterms showed, it offers a workable way forward.

The conventional wisdom says that libertarian politics is irrelevant in the age of Donald Trump. Liberty-minded ideas have been rejected, this line of thinking goes, both in the Republican Party and on the national scene.

The result of the midterm elections would seem to back this up. The Libertarian Party’s three state legislators were defeated in their reelection bids in Nebraska and New Hampshire. The libertarian-leaning Republican Congressman Rod Blum was defeated for reelection in his swing seat. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, once one of the few Republicans who supported marijuana legalization, was also defeated in his reelection bid. Congressman Dave Brat, the former economics professor who beat then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary bid back in 2014, was also sent packing.

Yet while there was some bad news for libertarians in the midterms, there was also plenty of good news. Those positive glimmers show that libertarian populism still has a place in both the Republican Party and national politics.

Congressmen Justin Amash and Thomas Massie were easily reelected. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who columnist George Will called “an oasis of liberty,” was also returned to office. The libertarian-leaning House Freedom Caucus is still expected to be a powerful force within the congressional GOP.

Advertisement

And even the bad news has an asterisk by it in some cases. Dana Rohrabacher was likely defeated because of his questionable ties to the Russian government. Dave Brat was known for his hardline immigration stances, which may have helped make him unpopular among Eric Cantor’s old supporters.

Libertarian populism also has a progressive component. And on Tuesday, the House Liberty Caucus’s only Democratic member, Jared Polis, was elected governor of Colorado.

But it is the unexpectedly strong victory of Denver Riggleman of “Bigfoot erotica” fame in Virginia’s Fifth Congressional District that shows how libertarian populism can still be a force in American politics. Riggleman is described by National Review’s Jibran Khan as “a libertarian outsider with a knack for free-market populism.” Riggleman, who owns a whiskey distillery, ran a positive, policy-focused race against crony capitalism and for reforms in the H2A guest worker program in order help farmers get the labor they need.

Riggleman’s path to Congress was unique. He ran briefly for Virginia governor in 2017 before dropping out to focus on his business. The incumbent, Republican Congressman Tom Garrett, was forced to abandon his reelection bid as a result of his battle with alcoholism. Riggleman, with the support of younger voters, won a contentious nominating convention against a leading social conservative. His victory shows that a libertarian populist message can still resonate, even in a battleground district.

Why is libertarian populism still relevant? The latest answer is Amazon’s decision to place its HQ2 facility in Arlington, Virginia, and New York City (along with another project in Nashville). Amazon collected over $2.2 billion in government subsidies from the three states. The only congressional opposition to this act of blatant cronyism came from libertarians and self-described socialist Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Libertarian populists are in a unique position to exploit the political divide in today’s America. They are skeptical of both big business and big government. They are strong supporters of free speech whether the threat comes from the state or from private industry. They are unapologetically anti-globalist while at the same championing free trade and a realist foreign policy. They champion both environmental conservation and limited government. They understand that a limited social safety net is necessary. They support both streamlined legal immigration and border security.

Do they have a chance in Trump’s Republican Party? Yes, because the efforts to build a Trumpism without Trump took a beating in the midterms. Corey Stewart was soundly defeated in his bid for Virginia’s U.S. Senate seat by Senator Tim Kaine. Lou Barletta, another Trumpian immigration restrictionist candidate, was defeated for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat. Kris Kobach was beaten in his bid to become Kansas’s governor. There is little love for Trumpism among suburbanites and young people, two demographics that the Republican Party must do better among if it hopes to win in the future.

Trump himself seems to understand this to a point. He recently endorsed criminal justice reform legislation that is working its way through the U.S. Senate. He has hinted at supporting the legalization of marijuana at the federal level. One of his most important unofficial advisors is none other than Senator Rand Paul.

Far from dead, libertarian populism offers the way forward for the right. The political movement of the foreseeable future is going to be populist, not centrist. Why shouldn’t the championing of human liberty be one of the causes that the people take up?

Kevin Boyd is a freelance writer. He has been published at The Federalist, IJ Review, the New York Observer, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter @TheKevinBoyd.

Hide 16 comments

16 Responses to Libertarian Populism is Still Relevant in the Age of Trump

” a libertarian outsider with a knack for free-market populism.” Riggleman, who owns a whiskey distillery, ran a positive, policy-focused race against crony capitalism and for reforms in the H2A guest worker program in order help farmers get the labor they need.”

In the state of Virginia there are 125,000 unemployed, safe to say that most of the 6,000 homeless population are among them. I would be curious of the dynamic used to include these people in the workforce of the agricultural need. There are 6 million unemployed across the US, excluding the margin of error and unemployed who are not applying for benefits, but are unemployed. I would be curious what prevents recruiting from this population.

And that what makes libertarians an anathema to people like me. So instead of policies the enable his fellow citizens to get employed , the argument is to import outsiders as cheap labor. The scam here is unmistakable, it’s the easy road.

Instead of investigating what makes it hard to hire citizens, the answer for the libertarian is always the easy leap — bypass their fellow citizens for a quick buck.

Libertarian populists are in a unique position to exploit the political divide in today’s America. They are skeptical of both big business and big government. They are strong supporters of free speech whether the threat comes from the state or from private industry. They are unapologetically anti-globalist while at the same championing free trade and a realist foreign policy. They champion both environmental conservation and limited government. They understand that a limited social safety net is necessary. They support both streamlined legal immigration and border security.

This paragraph is the perfect example of the complete incoherence of Libertarian philosophy.

“They are skeptical of both big business and big government.” But they believe that if we get rid of the government, Big Business will just selflessly control itself.

“They are strong supporters of free speech whether the threat comes from the state or from private industry.” Unless someone in private industry says something to support liberal policies, in which case they want them shut down. By the government, if necessary.

“They are unapologetically anti-globalist while at the same championing free trade and a realist foreign policy.” “Free trade” and “globalism” are two aspects of the exact same thing. Being for one and against the other is like being a vegetarian who eats nothing but meat.

“They champion both environmental conservation and limited government.” But without government, there is no one to stop corporations from destroying the environment.

In his “Libertarian Populism and Its Limits”—written five years ago, before the Trump revolution—The New York Times’ Ross Douthat cut right to the chase:

“I see a lot to like about this populist libertarianism..But could it win a presidential election? And would it deserve to? Right now I think the answers are no and no, because its broader economic agenda — to the extent that it exists — would be both politically untenable and mistaken on the merits. Consider, for instance, Senator Paul’s budget blueprint, which offers the following five big planks: (1) A balanced budget amendment, requiring deeper cuts to discretionary spending than Paul Ryan’s budget contemplates. (2) A flat tax. (3) The repeal of Obamacare, without any sort of alternative reform on the horizon. (4) An end to the Federal Reserve’s (supposedly) inflationary policies. (5) Entitlement reform…I’m not saying this is the populist libertarian agenda…But right now, it is an agenda that’s backed, in outline at least, by many of the G.O.P. politicians and activists who fit the category they describe…Put [Paul’s budget planks 1, 2, and 5] together along the lines that many Republicans in this camp tend to envision, and add the repeal-without-replacement of Obamacare as well, and you have a reform of the welfare state that would dramatically reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest Americans while dramatically stripping down benefits and tax breaks for the poor and working class — and which would do all this, crucially, after a long era in which the rich have already been doing just fine (to put it mildly), while wages have grown more slowly for the middle class, the employer-based health insurance system has begun to unravel, and mobility from the bottom has probably weakened. Would a majority of Americans vote for this combination? I doubt it. Should a majority of Americans vote for it? No, I don’t think they should.”

In discussing the chances that libertarian populism will take a hold in America a “Bill-Russell-ism” comes to mind: The Boston Celtics were leading the New York Knicks by 20 points with two minutes left in the game and Celtic Hall-of-Famer Bill Russell said, “The Knicks’ chances are somewhere between slim and none.”

It is hard to imagine any truer friends of genuine American liberty than those 5, who were each overwhelmed by massive Democrat spending and mainstream media vilification.

Boyd’s insinuation that Rohrabacher is a Russian puppet is a particularly reprehensible slander.

There have been times when Rohrabacher was one of only 5 congressmen to take a stand against foreign policy interventionism, alongside Jones, Duncan, Massie, and Amash, a record of which he should be proud.

Ken T: “They are strong supporters of free speech whether the threat comes from the state or from private industry.” Unless someone in private industry says something to support liberal policies, in which case they want them shut down. By the government, if necessary.

I agree with the rest of your points, but I have one small quibble. Most libertarians (in my observation) are different than these supposed “libertarian populists” in that they don’t care one whit about shutting down private companies which support liberal policies.

In fact, it seems like most libertarians support crackdowns on free speech (on the right, typically) when that crackdown is directed by private companies.

And that is the ultimate incoherence of libertarianism itself: a hatred of gov’t but an inability to protect basic social freedoms in a monopolistic economy without the intervention of that aforesaid gov’t.

“And that is the ultimate incoherence of libertarianism itself: a hatred of gov’t but an inability to protect basic social freedoms in a monopolistic economy without the intervention of that aforesaid gov’t.”

They have no way of mediating disputes. They say parties should be able to resolve issues of their own accord, but upon being reminded that the more powerful party can avoid any attempt at resolution — they fall “mum.”

too bad the libertarian/conservative establishment simply doesn’t understand the US Income tax. Except for one, Pete Hendrickson of Michigan. The income tax is a classical liberal tax on public offices. We do not need a flat tax, we need to understand the Constitution. It is not how much you earn, but how you earned it. If these libertarians would only grasp this, they could ignite the youth who are trapped in a social security/medicare system that promises to not be there for them. See http://www.losthorizons.com

The Libertarian Party is run by the highest bidder for president, including someone named Koch,

We are unaware of any libertarian who specifically ran against an incumbent, Democrat or Republican, on grounds that either specifically expanded government to an encroaching level; Rather all the news is garnered by three-way races where the GOP incumbent is targeted for loss,

Rand Paul and Dana Rohrabacher do not meet the definition of ‘libertarian’ by the fact that they advance party policy: Spec Paul with developmental tax subsidies and lack of introduction of actual free market principles in health care reform, and Rohrabacher with his stances on national security,

Libertarianism in the US is typically of the kook variety, to attract effete attention to what we charitably call ‘gay rights’. So tell me, if gays should be free to love one another, why have marriage enter into it at all, or talk so much about gays in the first place, who are largely unidentifiable in any civic forum?

No libertarian as a distinct political actor will specifically run on gun rights, voter fraud and supression, repeal of any wage or other policy at the Dept of Labor, or enforcement of Constitutional originalism and supremacy in general. Not to my knowledge.

So what are you going to characterize the dodgy fashion plate cum bisexual Krysten Sinema as a libertarian in homecoming queen robes? We’ll see soon enough over the Wall.

EliteCommInc says “I would be curious what prevents recruiting from this population” (the unemployed, vs recruiting H2A guest workers)”. There are many arguments against libertarianism, but this one does not hold water.

The unemployment rate in the US is very low right now. Of those that are unemployed, a large part of them are just between jobs, and the jobs they are looking for is not seasonal strawberry picking. Of the rest…well, have you ever tried to employ them? They don’t show up on time, have no work ethic, and have no basic skills. No company in their right might would employ them. If you want your fruit picked, it’s immigrants.

But wait, with our current administration starting all these trade wars, our farmers are losing their markets around the world. Guess we don’t have top pick the fruit after all.

I rooted for Paul in the primaries mostly because he took a strong stand against the endless military intervention we have undertaken and sustained since 911. This is the really important issue where a third party could differentiate itself from the two major parties. Alas, he wasn’t loud and flashy enough for our TV trained electorate. Trump denounced the Iraq war in his campaign, and gave me hope. But that was all hot air, as obviously he is owned by the Zionist war party, just like the two presidents before him. Guess we’ll be in Afghanistan and the rest until armagedon comes. Few people seem to even care.

“And that is the ultimate incoherence of libertarianism itself: a hatred of gov’t but an inability to protect basic social freedoms in a monopolistic economy without the intervention of that aforesaid gov’t.”

ohhh no, it’s not n inability – that would be generous. It’s no desire to deal with the question, because such issues should be negotiated out among individuals or the parties involved. I took a moment to peek at the Organizational website. First on their list: same sex practitioners beat the GOP — I didn’t bother to read it. Bit anyone’s into page that opens to any promotion or celebration of such behavior as conservative — well, that just not something a conservative is going to embrace as well as being creepy.

They don’t make much sense — cutting taxes, without a mention of cutting spending — oh that’s just very innovative — not. That is status quo.

Whether libertarian or other, populism can be summed up as a blind hatred towards the labor which entails the tracking and trade of numbers. Crony capitalism is nothing more than the activities of institutions involved with trading securities and exchanging data.

Because they do not have dirt under their finger nails, the denizens of such activity are despised. This hatred is so deeply rooted in us that it goes at least as far back as the preaching of Father Coughlin when massive unemployment during the Great Depression brought out this sentiment to the fore through his radio program.

And policy crafted from this blind hatred could only reek havoc on the process of good governance and upon the U.S. Constitution. We are the losers by succumbing to this folly.

Judging from the comments here, I will say this for Libertarianism – it does an outstanding job of showing those of us on the Left and on the Right that we DO in fact have some common ground. We both can see the inherent self-contradictions of Libertarianism.

Keep whacking that libertarian straw man, Ken T. You’ll get him one of these days. I don’t know if you’re honestly ignorant of actual libertarian philosophy, or if you’re deliberately misunderstanding and misstating it for whatever reason.

You seem to buy into the fairy tale that only the state can protect us from the ravages of big business, which is beyond ridiculous. Big Government and Big Business are joined at the hip and have been for a very long time. All the state needs to do to prevent monopolies is to prevent the use of fraud or force. Monopolies can only be maintained by force, and that force has traditionally been supplied by the state itself. Back in the day, kings rewarded their supporters with monopolies. Now, government regulation creates barriers to entry that allow a few large firms to dominate industries. (Oligopoly has all the same negative effects of monopoly. It provides an appearance of competition, but little of the benefits of actual competition.) Big Business likes this arrangement, since it insulates them from messy competition. Big Government likes it because it’s easier to control (and shake down) a handful of large companies than dozens or hundreds of small ones.

Without state interference, monopolies rarely arise, and quickly collapse if they do. Investment follows profit, so the moment a monopolist starts charging above-market prices, there will always be somebody eager to get into the business. Cartels can limit competition, but unless they’re backed by force, they also tend to collapse. Each member has an incentive to cheat (“Cheating” here means not charging consumers artificially inflated prices, and is thus a good thing.), which eventually overpowers their loyalty to the cartel. As soon as one party cheats, the incentive for others to do so grows, and the whole structure eventually collapses. Only if someone (typically the state) uses force to punish any deviation can cartels survive.

That’s just one example of your fundamental misunderstanding. I’ll be happy to provide more.

Libertarianism in the US is typically of the kook variety, to attract effete attention to what we charitably call ‘gay rights’. So tell me, if gays should be free to love one another, why have marriage enter into it at all, or talk so much about gays in the first place, who are largely unidentifiable in any civic forum?

Maybe because “marriage” as currently defined is a state institution which grants certain legal privileges. This can impact things ranging from taxes and insurance benefits to the ability to visit one’s SO in a hospital, and so much more. Unless your union has been blessed by the holy state, it can be extremely difficult or downright impossible to exercise certain rights. If you want to blame somebody, try taking aim at the God-botherers who dragged the state into defining and rewarding marriage in the first place. Any time you increase the power of the state, you invite others to use that power in ways you’re not going to like.

Oh, and if you dislike the term “gay rights”, please feel free to just call them human rights.